# Oncologists’ Satisfaction with Virtual Care: A Questionnaire

## TL;DR

This study surveyed Canadian oncologists about their satisfaction with virtual care, finding that most are satisfied but have concerns about certain aspects like language barriers and diagnostic accuracy.

## Contribution

The study introduces a new questionnaire to assess oncologists' satisfaction with virtual care and identifies key areas of concern.

## Key findings

- 72% of respondents reported satisfaction with virtual care.
- Lower satisfaction was linked to less comfort with technology (p < 0.001).
- Items related to cost reduction and patient access received the highest agreement.

## Abstract

Introduction: Although virtual care (VC) has become an integral part of oncology care and healthcare delivery, clinicians’ perspectives on and satisfaction with this modality are not well understood. Methods: Using a National Network Forum framework and expert panel review, we developed a questionnaire to measure oncologists’ satisfaction with VC. The questionnaire was distributed to Canadian oncologists through medical society email lists (n = 1541). We used a 5-point Likert scale to capture their responses, which included strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). Results: A total of 61 oncologists and/or oncology trainees, of 768 (7.9%) who opened their email, completed questionnaires between October 2022 and January 2023. Every questionnaire item had a response rate greater than 98%. Seventy-two percent of the respondents were satisfied with VC. Oncologists who were less comfortable with technology were more likely to report lower levels of satisfaction (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum). The questionnaire items that received the highest levels of agreement were related to VC reducing costs and improving access for patients and concerns about missing a diagnosis and assessing patients’ functional status. The questionnaire items that received the greatest disagreement were related to VC improving access for patients with language barriers, VC being associated with time-savings for clinicians, improvements in clinical efficacy, and more readily available lab tests. Conclusions: Most of the oncologists surveyed are satisfied with VC; however, there are some concerns with VC that need to be addressed. Future research on optimizing VC should address clinicians’ concerns, in addition to addressing the patient experience.